Disposed

Alarmel Valli v. The District Collector

Madras HC19 Jun 2024WP(MD)/13014/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition sought removal of unauthorised construction by private respondents on a road margin (splay) owned by Kodaikanal Municipality. The local body confirmed the allegations. The court directed the Commissioner to issue notices to the private respondents, hear them, and complete the exercise within three months, leaving all contentions open.

What did the court decide?

Direction to second respondent Commissioner to issue notice to private respondents and remove encroachments within three months if case is made out.

Alarmel Valli Vs The District Collector — Municipal and Town Planning | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.(MD) No.13014 of 2024

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 19.06.2024

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR .R.MAHADEVAN , ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE and THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN

¶6

W.P.(MD) No.13014 of 2024 and W.M.P.(MD) No.11552 of 2024

Alarmel Valli

... Petitioner

-vs-

1.The District Collector Dindigul District Dindigul-624 001

¶11

2.The Commissioner Kodaikanal Municipality Kodaikanal-624 101 Dindigul District

¶12

3.The Tahsildar Kodaikanal Taluk Kodaikanal-624 101 Dindigul District

¶13

4.The Inspector of Police (L&O) Kodaikanal Police Station Kodaikanal-624 101

¶14

Dindigul District

¶15

Page 1 of 6

¶16

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶17

5.St.Antony Church rep.by its Authorized Signatory Mapillai Mudali Road (MM Road) 6FMV+MQ3, Woodville Road Kodaikanal Town Kodaikanal-624 101

¶18

W.P.(MD) No.13014 of 2024

¶19

6.D.Selvam ... Respondents

¶20

PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 3 to form a Park in the road margin abutting the MM Road and maintain the Municipality Land as a Splay / Park as per the Revenue Records by removing the encroachment by the respondents 5 and 6 in the Municipality Land / Road Margin (Splay), situated at Mappillai Mudali Road (MM Road), Kodaikanal Town, Kodaikanal-624 101, located in T.S.No.39, Block No.19, Ward No.C, Mappillai Road (MM Road), Kodaikanal Town, Kodaikanal, Dindigul District.

¶21

For Petitioner : Ms.J.Anandhavalli For Respondents : Mr.N.Satheesh Kumar Additional Government Pleader for R1 & R3 Mr.T.S.Mohammed Mohideen Standing Cousnel for R2 Mr.T.Senthil Kumar Additional Public Prosecutor for R4

¶22

_____________ Page 2 of 6_

¶23

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶24

W.P.(MD) No.13014 of 2024

¶25

O R D E R

¶26

R.MAHADEVAN , A.C.J. And G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.

¶27

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents 1 & 3, learned Standing Counsel for the second respondent and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the fourth respondent.

¶28

2. Issuance of notice to the private respondents is dispensed with.

¶29

3. The writ petitioner is a very well known dancer. She has filed this writ petition for removal of the unauthorized construction at the road margin of Mappillai Mudali Road, Kodaikanal Town, Kodaikanal. The petitioner owns a property in that road. Learned counsel for the petitioner took us through the averments set out in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition.

¶30

4. The allegations made by the petitioner are confirmed by the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Local Body.

¶31

Page 3 of 6

¶32

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶33

W.P.(MD) No.13014 of 2024

¶34

5. We, therefore, direct the second respondent to issue notices to

¶35

the private respondents calling upon them to remove the petition mentioned encroachments. After hearing them, if the second respondent is satisfied that the petitioner has made out a case, the petition mentioned encroachments shall be removed. This exercise shall be completed by the second respondent within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. We make it clear that we have not gone into the merits of the matter. All the contentions and defence of the private respondents are left open.

¶36

With the above direction, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶37

[R.M.D., A.C.J.] [G.R.S., J.] 19.06.2024

¶38

NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No

¶39

krk / ias

¶40

Page 4 of 6

¶41

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶42

W.P.(MD) No.13014 of 2024

¶43

To:

¶44

1.The District Collector, Dindigul District, Dindigul-624 001.

¶45

2..The Tahsildar, Kodaikanal Taluk, Kodaikanal-624 101, Dindigul District.

¶46

3.The Inspector of Police (L&O), Kodaikanal Police Station, Kodaikanal-624 101, Dindigul District.

¶47

Page 5 of 6

¶48

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶49

W.P.(MD) No.13014 of 2024

¶50

R.MAHADEVAN , A.C.J. and G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.

¶51

krk / ias

¶52

W.P.(MD) No.13014 of 2024 and W.M.P.(MD) No.11552 of 2024

¶53

19.06.2024

¶54

Page 6 of 6

¶55

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Alarmel Valli v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Alarmel Valli v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

A.Balakrishnan Vs The Chairman

K.Sathiyamoorthi Vs The District Collector / Monitoring Committee

M/s.Anish Solar Systems Pvt. Ltd., Madurai Vs The Chairman and Managing Director

Joseph Benin. T Vs The District Collector

S.Balakrishnan Vs G.Lakshmipathy IAS

S.Krishnan, Vs the Secretary to Govt.